The discussion about Champagne Release Prices (Champagne Release Prices) drifted eventually into a discussion of aging Champagne under cork, rather than crown cap. I thought I’d start a new conversation about the topic, because it interests me and I think it worthy of discussion. I’m going to copy some of that discussion to get things started. If I’m wrong, there will be few if any replies below, so here goes…
I find Filaine’s Cuvee Speciale and DMY to be an interesting comparison. Vins clairs all aged in old casks and no malo. The cépages are also similar, as is dosage. CS is aged sur lattes under crown cap for two years, while DMY ages under cork for four. The wines are stylistically similar, with DMY richer, deeper, and less effervescent than CS. After a few years in the cellar, CS puts on a little weight and gains some depth. While aging narrows the gap between the two somewhat, CS never reaches the full flavor profile of DMY.
Why? Two extra years sur latte before disgorgement? Cork aging v crown cap aging? Something else?
I don’t think we understand cork enough to answer this question completely. You can get a crown cap with differing permeabilities and the ingress/egress is essentially linear; the cap is designed to perform with a set of specifications. Mytik or Mytik-like closures are the same and this is why most Champagne producers have no interest in Mytik for a second fermetnation - you can get a crown cap to perform the same and it delivers a better overall value. Every cork is unique and there isn’t an easy formula that is going to tell you how it is going to perform and even if there was it would be quite complex and definitely not linear over time.
As to Filaine, a couple extra years on the lees makes a huge difference especially for a wine that is not seeing extended lees aging. My feeling is that the cork has much less of an effect on the final product than the amount of time aging on the lees. But, I do feel that the cork aging will help highlight some richness and depth that is only possible with the longer lees aging of the DMY. There may not be enough to highlight in the Cuvee Speciale and the cork may not make much or enough of a difference. Unless Fabrice wants to make the Cuvee Speciale and DMY in both crown and cork varieties, we won’t know. I think this is a case where the cork aging is a great accompaniment to the main force of the longer lees aging. DMY is normally dosed 1 g/L lower so that also can affect things, but the lees aging is still the key IMO.
Yes, you are correct. This is a concern and some producers have made the investment for testing to eliminate the possibility of TCA as much as they can, but this isn’t inexpensive and there are still other potential problems with corks outside of TCA. If you want consistency across all bottles, use crown caps or Mytik/Mytik-like closures at all stages of the Champagne closure process.
There are plenty. DP, Dom Ruinart, Bollinger, Geoffroy, Etienne Calsac, and Lallier come to mind first, but there are a heck of a lot more. While some do it for a specific reason after testing, some do it just because it is trendy or to try something new. Most tend to use them on lower volume wines and/or wines that see more time on the lees. DP takes things to another level with their P2/P3 as they are cork aged and volumes are in the millions now.
Something we have observed especially over the last few years is how champagnes are becoming more drinkable at an early age. Agrapart in the grower scene was the master at making champagnes which were open to drinking from the start. How big a part does the cork play in this, it is actually difficult to know who use them and who does not as this is not necessarily infrmation that producers provide.
I think it comes down to which possibilities have the producers for natural oxygenation. How oxaditve a champagne is often a direct result of how much oxygen contact there is during the fermentation. Krug are the masters here. What follows is more a case of how best to oxygenate naturally during elevage and during the second fermentation. Agrapart uses barrels and stainless steel so you have the aerobic element and the anaerobic element. Combine this with as short a sojourn on the lees as possible and you have a pretty accessible champagne from the beginning, low dosage and the champagne is drinkable straight after degorgement. This does not imply it will not improve with aging.
Both Agrapart and Selosse have done a lot of reseach in to the shape of the yeast particles, they wanted flat rather than round forms to optimailise contact surface to the liquid. This means one can get more yeast aromas in a shorter space of time.
One has to understand with Agrapart, he is also going for optimal ripeness which plays a big part in champagnes being drinkable young.
A really interesting producer, who tries to emulate Krug is Tristan Hyest. He sells a lot of Pinot noir to Krug and with his own champagnes he wants to emulate them. Fermentation in barrel but rather elevage in stainless steel, elevage is in magnums under cork. I do not know if he does second feremtnation under cork but his champagnes strangely have the Krug feel to them. Critics have not latched on to him but the Italian market has and it is really difficultt o get his champagnes. his champagnes are very accessible from the beginning.
With sur lees aging I think one has to take the site into consideration. A really good example of this going wrong is with Elise Bougy, she inherited from her grand mother a site in Chetillons. Granted she had little financial resources, her first Chetillons release was a disaster and she took a lot of criticism for it. Producers said Chetillons especially need more time on the lees, it softens the champagne. One sees the same in Ay, the champagnes need more time on the lees . Paul Gosset learned this the hard way.
When one talks with producers, they often speak of the champagne not being ready and it needs another 6 months on the lees and then another 6 months on the lees. I think this has especially to do with the big sites and vintage champagnes.
You can tell from the rim of the bottle (the “goulot”) whether it was tirage under crown cap or cork, Donald! So the information is hiding in plain sight! You need a thicker goulot with a different profile to be able to hold the staple that holds in the cork.
One bit of historical context for this discussion is that the first generation of crown caps actually had composite cork liners. Which were very susceptible to TCA and also degraded over time. So you got the worst of both world. Egly for example had big issues pushing longer sur lattes with these capsules, and the wines ended up more oxidative back in the 1990s than they likely would have done under cork. He regrets not having disgorged all his old library wines that he kept under capsules for this reason. Once polymer lined crown caps became available, things changed very much for the better.
As you make wine, I assume you ferment in the barrel as I believe most burgundian producers do. I feel as toasting regimes are being dialled back, we are seeing much more accessible wines from the start.
This is something I always wonder about in the Champagne. Few producers tend to ferment in the barrel, I find those that do tend to make more balanced champagnes than those who fill the wine into barrel after fermentation. Apart from Egly, three producers who really stand out at this for me are Savart, Leclapart and Agrapart. Although the discussion is about caps versus corks more in the context of Bereche, but I wonder personally how important fermentation is, as a whole for the later outcome.
Not really wanting to stir up a Ulysse Collin discussion, a lot of us see the likes of Selosse and Ulysse Collin as being a bit anachronostic. It fascinates me that numerous younger producers are not following there path rather rebelling against it. We always ask young producers, who has influenced them most and the answer is usually not what one would expect. My feeling is the Jura influence is becoming more pronounced in the Champagne, in terms of working with natural oxygenation.
Yes, the entire premise of cork lining the inside of a crown cap is a great example of skewed thinking, but it went on for a long time; I recall still seeing these in the early 2000s even though some had moved away from them decades before that. Additionally, the first version of crown caps that came out in the mid to late 1960s had a high failure rate seal-wise (especially for extended aging) and the first folks that moved to crown caps ended up with wines that matured far too quickly or oxidized and had to be discarded. Clicquot was one of the first to move in the mid-1960s and got hit pretty hard with this.
Toasting is a big part of it, and a complex subject in itself as it comprises how hot, covered or not, how long, what sort of heat… Then there is grain, origin, seasoning… all of which is inter-related with toast, e.g. less seasoned wood with more toast is not the same as very seasoned wood with more toast. These variables then interact with the wine. There are principles but no rules, and it really takes in my so far very limited experience about 3-5 years to figure out what is ideal. As one gets more experience it gets easier, but not that much easier.
Fermenting in tank before going to barrel I don’t think inherently makes oakier-tasting wines, it’s just a matter of the barrels and the temperature of barreling down for the most part. The French have the expression, don’t feed strawberries to pigs; and in commerce, you tend to get what they think you deserve rather than what you ask for. I am not convinced that many producers in Champagne are getting the good barrels, and there are fewer and fewer to go around. Hydric stress in oak trees makes the wood taste of coconut, who knew. So… lots to think about! And as ever, no simple answers.
As for going in a vin nature/Jurassic direction, fine, it’s one route to escape the glass ceilings imposed by the traditional hierarchy of terroirs without necessarily having to do the work in the vineyards and the winery to make great wines. There’s a market for it, and I think today we are seeing a Balkanisation of the wine market, with lots of different niches, but happily without the need for those niches to attack each other. I do tend to think that gout de souris/brett/high VA Champagnes will struggle to find a broad audience, and they simply don’t interest me in any case. A very trendy US importer once said I have a Bourgeois palate, and without bearing it as a badge of honor it did not unduly perturb me.
As for going in a vin nature/Jurassic direction, fine, it’s one route to escape the glass ceilings imposed by the traditional hierarchy of terroirs without necessarily having to do the work in the vineyards and the winery to make great wines. There’s a market for it, and I think today we are seeing a Balkanisation of the wine market, with lots of different niches, but happily without the need for those niches to attack each other. I do tend to think that gout de souris/brett/high VA Champagnes will struggle to find a broad audience, and they simply don’t interest me in any case. A very trendy US importer once said I have a Bourgeois palate, and without bearing it as a badge of honor it did not unduly perturb me.
You know William, I got you totally wrong in the beginning. Your wasted as a wine critic, Your turn of phrase and ability to articulate are incredible.
There’s a market for it, and I think today we are seeing a Balkanisation of the wine market
I think this has made my day. I sell champagne etc and have to cater and understand different tastes, and often when one tastes new stuff one can get over excited and lose perspective.
I think it’s important to understand that natural winemaking is a winemaking movement in its origins, not an agronomic approach. There are plenty of “natural” producers who do not farm organically, and who purchase fruit from vineyards treated with herbicides.
I wrote an essay about the history of the natural wine movement in Noble Rot a year or two ago, I might ask them if I can republish it here.
Anyway, it’s quite a digression from the topic at hand!
That is just the difference between what Anglophone observers think it “should” mean, and what the movement, given its historical origins going back to Chauvet and Neauport, actually represents in France.